Here’s my situation: I’ve been working hard to rebuild my credit after helping my mom secure an apartment a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, she got evicted, which impacted my credit score. Last year, it was at 690, went to 520’s but now it’s up to 615. Recently, I received a personal injury settlement, and I’m considering buying my first home. Do you think my credit qualifies me for a loan, especially if I put more money down? I’d appreciate any insights! Or any programs that would help with closing an all

The global Stem Cell Therapy Market is expected to reach USD 3,693.6 Million by 2027, according to a new report by Emergen Research. The stem cell therapy market is experiencing increased demand due to the rise in the number of clinical trials all over the world. Stem cells are applicable to the development of regenerative medicine, commonly used in the field of dermatology. However, the demand for stem cell applications in the oncology segment will witness the highest growth due to several pipeline projects present for the treatment of cancer or tumors.
Stem cell therapy holds incredible promise for treating a wide range of diseases and injuries. From regenerating damaged tissues to potentially curing conditions like Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries, the potential impact is immense.
One of the most exciting aspects is its versatility. Stem cells can differentiate into various cell types, making them incredibly adaptable for different treatment needs. This adaptability opens doors for personalized medicine, tailoring treatments to individual patients for optimal results.
https://www.biospace.com/article/stem-cell-therapy-market-size-to-reach-usd-3-693-6-million-in-2027-industry-trend-increasing-funding-for-research-by-many-public-and-private-organizations/

Are you obsessed with hitting the gym day in and day out, pushing yourself to the brink in pursuit of your fitness goals?
It's time to face the harsh reality: overtraining syndrome might be lurking just around the corner, ready to derail your progress and leave you feeling worse off than when you started

The Dangerous Obsession

We've all been there – chasing that elusive endorphin high, pushing ourselves to the limit in the name of progress.
But what if I told you that too much of a good thing could actually be detrimental to your health?

The Telltale Signs

Overtraining syndrome isn't just about feeling a bit tired or sore after a tough workout. It's a serious condition characterized by a myriad of symptoms, including:

• Persistent Fatigue
• Decreased Performance
• Mood Disturbances

Ignoring these red flags can lead to a downward spiral of burnout and injury

The Physical Toll

Pushing your body beyond its limits can have devastating consequences. From muscle strains and joint pain to hormonal imbalances and weakened immune function, overtraining syndrome wreaks havoc on your physical health.
And the longer you ignore the warning signs, the harder it becomes to bounce back

The Mental Strain

But it's not just your body that suffers – overtraining syndrome can take a toll on your mental well-being as well.
Constantly pushing yourself to the brink can lead to feelings of:

• Frustration
• Anxiety
• Depression

Suddenly, what was once a source of joy and empowerment becomes a source of stress and dread

The Importance of Rest

So, what's the solution? It may sound counterintuitive, but sometimes the best thing you can do for your fitness journey is to take a step back and rest.
Incorporating rest days into your routine, listening to your body's signals, and prioritizing recovery are crucial for preventing overtraining syndrome and maintaining long-term progress

The Bottom Line

Overtraining syndrome is a real and potentially dangerous condition that affects countless individuals in the fitness community.
Don't let your obsession with progress blind you to the warning signs – take care of your body and mind, and remember that rest is just as important as hard work.
Ready to transform your online presence and skyrocket your reach? Elevate your blog to new heights with my proven strategy, amplifying your growth by 3X in just 3-6 months.
Collaborate with me, and we'll craft:

• Compelling
• Value-Packed Content

That captivates your audience and delivers tangible outcomes!
Drop a message with "Fitness" now and enjoy an exclusive 20% discount for your first 3 months!

FAQs About Overtraining Syndrome

1. What are the symptoms of overtraining syndrome?
Overtraining syndrome manifests through a range of symptoms, including persistent fatigue, decreased performance, insomnia, irritability, and even frequent illness.
It's crucial to recognize these signs early to prevent further complications
2. How can I prevent overtraining syndrome?
Preventing overtraining syndrome involves striking a balance between exercise and rest.
Incorporate rest days into your routine, listen to your body's signals, vary your workouts, prioritize quality sleep, and ensure adequate nutrition and hydration
3. Can overtraining syndrome be reversed?
Yes, overtraining syndrome can be reversed with the right approach.
This typically involves scaling back on intense workouts, prioritizing rest and recovery, addressing any underlying nutritional deficiencies, and gradually reintroducing exercise in a balanced manner.
However, it's essential to consult with a healthcare professional for personalized guidance and support

I mean, discussing this might seem pointless, but I can't shake the feeling that an injury-free Neymar this season could've been a perfect fit in Lucho's tactics, potentially giving us a better shot at winning the Champions League. He might've even been a contender in the Ballon d'Or race if he had stuck with European football. Unfortunately, fate had other plans; his Saudi contract and subsequent injury in Uruguay derailed his path.
It's just personally saddening to witness a player with infinite potential fall short, knowing he may never wear the PSG or even Brazil national team jersey again.

Little Author's Note up here since it was missed in the last chapter by some people: I don't approve of anyone "narrating" or using my story for their youtube channels or whatever as it makes me uncomfortable. I’ve been getting messages whenever I post a chapter asking the same thing and I keep saying no. If you see this story on youtube or elsewhere, I didn’t approve of it or give them my permission to do so.
Also I hope you enjoy this chapter, I had some difficulty writing it, so it’s probably not my best quality.
Cerelia, Altrin Female, Captain of The Opal Star
I smirk at my wrist data pad as I can see Triwt is basically hunting and chasing down the remaining pirates while expertly leading them to me for a trap.
“Triwt, you know me so well.” I say with a fully smug tone as I ready my rifle and prepare to open fire.
Not yet
The footsteps are getting louder.
Not yet…
The footsteps, given how good my hearing is, have now rounded the corner and there’s a shriek of terror.
“Boys! Turn back and save your damn Captain! The damn girl has me!”
I can’t help but smirk, it seems the ugly bastard did come aboard the ship. What’s better is that Triwt has grabbed him, leaving the remaining 4 pirates not looking this way.
Now.
Triwt, Female Valis-Trobat Hybrid, Security Commander
I’m slightly annoyed as I have to constantly dodge and weave going through the corridor. These dumbasses aren’t even aiming where they're shooting. I quickly duck low to the ground to dodge a barrage of plasma bolts, when I hear the one thing I was looking forward to. Click click click…
Silence follows the clicking of empty TOR’s besides the frantic running. It’s then replaced by one of the pirates, not the Captain, shrieking as she runs ahead of the others in a panic. In no sense am I a sadistic person, but however in this situation, I might have smiled a bit to her reaction as I pick up the pace and quickly enter melee range.
Hm, maybe we can afford one prisoner…
I see the corner coming up as I whip my body around and grab the Captain with my tail.
EWWWW He’s all slimy and mucusy! Goddess this is worse than Jordan Cores bleeding on my fur. EWWW!!!
“Boys! Turn back and save your damn Captain! The damn girl has me!”
Despite my own internal hatred of the sensation of having to get that gross slime like mucus on my tail of all things, I still pull the Captain back as they round the corner looking back at me as they abandon their captain. I give them a wave right before a hail of gunfire shreds through them, leaving only a fine mist.
I’m surprised Cerelia is allowed to even own such a modified weapon. I can’t even shoot it while holding it with all 4 of my arms due to the recoil! She says it’s registered as a ceremonial weapon. I suppose a sudden funeral is a ceremony in itself.
I smirk at the thought before returning my attention to this gross captain wrapped up in my tail.
Cerelia, Altrin Female, Captain of The Opal Star
I let out a relaxed sigh as I released the trigger from my grip. I don’t particularly enjoy battle, but there seems to be something within my own instincts that triggers dopamine at the end of a battle.
Probably something to do with Altrins being a hunter race before we were modern and spacefaring. Might have to ask a historian about that, if not at the very least a psychologist.
I lower my rifle as Triwt slithers down the hall, her fur undeniably red in a few spots where her fur was exposed, but mostly on her uniform. She keeps going with the Alcoranth Captain being dragged along by her tail, already bound up and gagged.
“I can deal with the blood of Jordan Cores, but take this bastard away from me before I slit his throat for getting mucus on my tail.”
Oh, she is pissed. She’s just doing a good job at mostly containing it.
I nod before speaking, “Just knock him out for now and we’ll put him in a cryopod or something. His slime-like excretions from his skin might make him an easy flight risk since we can assume he can slip out of handcuffs and other bindings fairly easily.”
Triwt nods at me and uses a Stun Baton to knock him out for now after hitting him with probably more volts than regulated.
I suppose it’s better than bashing his head against the wall until he passes out.
The remaining guards who were left with me take the now prisoner captain away from Triwt and begin transporting him to a cryopod room meant for emergencies like if the ship’s thrusters stop working and we’re years away from rescue.
We could just set up an SOS frequency broadcast and then put everyone in cryo until rescue arrives. But now, it’s a makeshift prison for a cowardly pirate.
Now… for the real battle in all of this. The battle on the inside.
Lys, Verkrawn Male, Fauna Research Specialist
Silence. Well, except my ears are ringing from the sound of gunfire that has now stopped.
I take in a shaky breath in what feels like the first time in forever. Everything is shaking now that the fighting seems to have stopped. It seems I’m not the only one who was holding their breath for so long as other crew members near me seemed to breathe in, while a few start to break down crying.
We’re not fighters like security, Triwt, or Cerelia. Most of us had never seen people die, to say the least how brutal it was to see how Jordan Cores attacked the Alcoranth. I feel my face with my clawed hands and feel the warm liquid of my tears running down my face.
When did I start crying?
The realization hit me like a powerloader as it’s my turn to break down crying, my own legs failing me as they shook before I found myself weeping on the floor as the thoughts and emotions flooded my head with what happened and how terrible this was. I keep crying as I feel the large paw of my older sister as she slowly sits me up and holds me in a warm embrace. It makes me think about when I was younger. The days when she and I were in the orphanage. She used to hold me just like this after she would chase away the older kids who would be mean to me. I still remember some of the things she’d say to them.
“I don’t care if a Verkawn’s scales can deflect most bullets, he still has feelings!” The first thing she ever said to the bullies as she chased them off. It was also the day I met her. She had lost her family due to a Slaver raid on the colony world she was living on at the time. She didn’t tell me much about it, and I doubt she would tell me even today, but she always called me her little brother, so I started calling her my older sister. It’s been like that since.
I keep crying until it’s more of a sniffle as I slowly return the embrace.
“They will never hurt you like they hurt me, Lys.” She whispers to me before slowly turning her attention to the crew members with a sad expression. “Nor any of you. Oh, none of this was ever supposed to happen.”
“Y-You can’t predict pirates, Cerelia”
“I know, but they got so close to hurting and enslaving you. I failed to keep you all safe.”
“Cerelia, we’re fine. No one got hurt physically. We should probably just go to the nearest planetary city, maybe see some therapists and psychologists while the ship gets repaired.”
Cerelia nods as she thinks about what I said.
“Yeah, but what about the furless beast? What are we supposed to do about it?” A member says as everyone was slowly coming to grips that they are alive and well. “Are we just going to keep it here? Who knows if it’ll attack us again like it did to Lys or that Alcoranth on the floor there!?”
“He was scared!” Cerelia counters, with a hint of personal anger in her tone. “He couldn’t understand us and was only trying to escape because he thought he was in danger!”
“He was in danger? He is the danger for all I’ve seen!” They countered as I felt like shrinking down and hiding away, before a bit more of an emotional burning sensation rose up in me.
“Shut up!” I suddenly snapped. Silence follows as they wait for me to say something. I have never raised my voice.
“Sure, they found us in here because Jordan Cores had a chip on him, but he didn’t know about it! Not only that, but he at least protected us from that psychopath, breaking his own body and getting shot before doing so! You haven’t even had time to interact with him. While my interactions with him were brief, I could at least tell that he was scared and that he was sorry!” I huff as I silently cry again as I look at both Cerelia and the crew member. I think their name is R’dorn. They’ve always been brash and rude, so I had a tendency to avoid them.
R’dorn looks at me annoyed, but as they are seemingly unable to come up with a good counter argument, they storm out of the safe room.
I look at Cerelia and Triwt before sighing and sitting down. “Sorry…”
“It’s alright, you kinda said what we were all thinking.” Someone says as they place a wing on me. “That, and R’dorn needs to shut up every now and then.” There’s sounds of agreement before it becomes a group embrace of comfort. Much different to huddling in fear.
“So wait, where is Jordan Cores now? Is he okay?”
“He’s in Med Bay 07’s only regeneration pod. He’s going to be fine, but it won’t be a while until he’s out due to his injuries.” Triwt responds as she slithers to the entrance of the room. “How about everyone gets cleaned up, or takes a hot shower to calm their nerves, and in about 2 hours time, we can see how Jordan Cores is holding up?”
That sounds like a good idea. To wash away the stress and some time to think, it sounds super nice.
I let out a sigh and nod. “Yeah, that sounds good to me… I’ll be there then. I guess if everyone else wants to show up, you can as well? Not like I can stop you or force you to, but the suggestion is there. Just trying to be considerate.”
With that, I stand up and I’m escorted back to my room to try and freshen up and clear my head.
And that is chapter 9! I was personally a little bit of mental and emotional wreck while writing because sometimes I don't know what I'm doing. At least that's how it feels. Gonna try and do some experimenting as I kinda want to explore some places now as we’ve been stuck on The Opal Star since the very beginning. So what are we feeling? A desert world, tropical world, or maybe a world that’s high in gravity, but Jordan seems to be just fine? Let me know your thoughts, ideas, and suggestions below, and thank you so much for reading!
First Prev Next

My 17-year-old son is 6'6" and has been around this height since he was 14. When I try to punish him for his irresponsibility, such as taking away his PC or money, he finds a way to get what he wants by stealing from me, his mother, or even his grandparents. He relies on the fact that we are less technologically advanced than he is; I am 67 and my wife is 58.
Physical punishments are not an option because he is a foot taller than me, and I am old and out of shape. His behavior is awful. He sometimes pretends to/immitates punch his mother when she says things he doesn't like, such as reminding him of his laziness or lack of effort. He pushes her onto soft objects like a couch or bed to avoid causing real injuries. He does whatever he wants and thinks he will always get away with it. Unfortunately, I fear he might be right.
I cannot take anything away from him, physically discipline him, or control him in any way. I can only hope that he is a good, thoughtful, and smart person deep down. We do talk sometimes, and I see that he is quite smart, witty, and kind.
He used to be very obedient, doing everything we wanted and aspiring to get into top universities. He attended one of the best schools in the country for free because he was intelligent and was very promising among his peers. However, after quarantine, he started acting disrespectful, toxic, and violent towards us, even though he continued to study hard. Now, he doesn't even study, and although he is no longer very violent, I still feel powerless over his behavior.
We might have spoiled him because we bought him everything he wanted and more, though he always says that he doesn't like spending too much of our money because he feels guilty afterward.
What do we do?

35M who recently experienced a non-operative Achilles rupture injury, a little over 2 months ago from writing this post. Before my injury, I was quite active at the gym.
I'm wondering if any physiotherapists or fitness enthusiasts out there could share their insights on whether it's still possible for me to undergo muscle hypertrophy in the gastro muscle, both functionally and aesthetically. By aesthetically, I mean achieving symmetry and size, though I don't hold myself to Olympian bodybuilding standards.
Personally, I believe it's doable, but it's going to require a lot of hard work. Once I’m full weight bearing I’m planning to work on the mind-muscle connection and ensuring I can contract the muscle effectively.

I’m a first year personal injury associate, I handle presuit settlements and litigation. I want to learn employment law (plaintiffs side) so that I can do both when I eventually start my own firm in 2-3 years. Any advice on what resources would be helpful to learn this practice area? I’m in New York if that helps. Thanks in advance!

Hi! I'm a long time GM that is itching to get another game going in my homebrew fantasy world! If you are looking for a fun, sandbox game, with a focus on character stories and immersion, this might be the game for you! New players are super welcome! I encourage all the 5e players to give GURPS a shot, I think you might really like it!

The World

The world of Mithlasia is an epic fantasy world quite different from out own. Dragons dominate the landscape, while young dragons terrorize the wilderness, elder dragons subjugate entire cities. The wilderness is full of strange and fantastic creatures, with an abundance of megafauna such as shelltusks, ground sloths, swordtooths and more. The night sky is dominated by the Shadow Moon, a massive celestial object which eclipses the sun daily at noon. Wizards cast spells powered by light, using crystals and prisms to create the colors they need for their sorcery. The world is ancient and full of danger, making it ripe for adventure!
This is a setting I have been working on for a while, and one that I am pretty proud of. It has its own magic system(s), cultures, pantheons, cosmology, wildlife and ecosystems.
Here is a brief introduction document for the world:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X5onZUbx1oljLjZ0Cuhsj6eWYXDNf1rE3-Iv3mCe69U/edit?usp=sharing

The Game

The game will follow a standard DnD-type formula. You will play as an adventurer, motivated in one way or another to travel, explore, fight evil/kill monsters, etc. I like to run games which focus on immersion, I do my best to make the world feel like a living place, and that your characters are a real part of it. I like to work with players so that their character has some kind of on-going personal story which I can incorporate into the game. I want the players to have time to roleplay conversations and interactions with each other and NPCs that help to build that sense of immersion, even if they aren't completely relevant to whatever the given quest/adventure might be.
I also like to focus a bit on realism (though I try to not be overbearing about it). I'm going to make you track encumbrance, food, arrows, etc. Injuries matter (part of why I like GURPS!)

Logistics

The game will be run in the evenings, after 9 PM EST. Day is TBD but we can figure out what works for the group. The game will use Discord for voice and text communication, and Foundry as the VTT (you dont need an account or anything). It is also really helpful if you can install GCS, a character building software for GURPS which makes the whole process 100x easier.
I can provide access to PDFs for all the rules we'll be using, and like I said before newcomers to GURPS are more than welcome!
If you are interested in joining this game, please fill out this form: https://forms.gle/NzvqRGoUpS7yFogm9
Thanks for reading, and I will reach out to people soon!

So, I want to redesign the structures of Minecraft, and as they say, ‘go big or go home,’ right? Right? Right! So, I’m going to redesign the Ancient City, and I need a bit of help choosing which option would be the most visually appealing and aesthetically appealing.
Option 1: The Upside-Down Village
Imagine a village suspended from the cave ceiling, redesigned, dilapidated, and abandoned. Inspired by the eerie world of “Stranger Things.” Instead of the usual bulky stone structures and sculk blobs, this village hangs delicately from the cave ceiling. Sculk veins weave through the cavern, pulsating with mysterious energy. The abandoned lanterns of old residents casting eerie glows. The air is thick with anticipation, as if reality itself could shift at any moment.
Option 2: The Mossy Ruins
In the heart of the deep dark, remnants of an ancient settlement lie hidden. Moss-covered stone structures peek out from the shadows, their purpose long forgotten. Redstone contraptions, once ingenious, now rusted and overgrown, dot the lab-like landscape. Eerie sounds echo—a haunting melody played by unseen hands. The Warden, guardian of these ruins, approaches cautiously. Was it curiosity that led to their demise, or something more sinister...
Option 3: Just Restore It
Or, if y’all come up with something better, drop it in the comments along with the backstory for it. And I'll include a sign with the persons user (or name) on the build. :) Thank you in advance for helping me get back into the game that built my childhood.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

UbeLyft Insurance & ultimately pay schemes they get drivers with. Plus some insurance companies will drop you for driving Ubelyft now.
Ride-share insurance is set up in a procedure that you don’t only get the ride share endorsement policy, you need it, but sold separately and added on. While driving for UbeLyft, their insurance is secondary to your personal policy. Once you are online, your personal insurance will be invalid. The passenger even pays for the insurance that UbeLyft charges extra for. This is why rides are expensive after COVID and passengers tip less.
Whatever primary policy you have for your vehicle.. Ubelyft is going to match the policy with contingency/secondary policies but then use your insurance for claims instead of theirs, in case of accident/incident claim.
If you don’t have a policy, UbeLyft is not gonna have the same policy so they’re going to piggyback you and coattail you to your success… if you crash it’s your fault all the time. All the risk is always in the driver and their equipment. And along your entire trajectory of ride-sharing UbeLyft are going to basically watch what you do, manipulate as much money as possible that they can the whole time.. every mile & minute, while online. Offline all personal coverage.
UbeLyft provide reasonable coverage for drivers since personal policies don’t apply. The 2.5k deductible is tomfoolery. Most ride-share drivers do not have that kind of money, they would be on the hook if driver gets into an accident while on the app. Also, Ride-share insurance is not cheap and even adding a rideshare endorsement on your personal policy can make your rates double even triple depending on policy coverages needs. Many insurance companies drop people because they are a rideshare endorsement and you need to work with particular companies willing to take the risk. Drivers don’t realize this until is too late, after UbeLyft rake 50-70% off the top of drivers production already. UbeLyft both sides, doing the most by offering the least & capitalizing on controlling the money with not only pay settlements but insurance as well.
So ultimately in the end, UbeLyft is manipulating Drivers, Riders and consumers through an insurance scheme as well as a pay scheme.
They also are probably self-insured privately with the front insurance company set up to protect them unless it’s so bad they have to cover it up with self-insurance. Similar to how RydePenske in commercial vehicles they are self insurance but make the carriers/drivers burden all cost while they manipulate the actual workers doing all the driving/working.

Plus some insurance companies will drop you for driving Ubelyft now.
Ride-share insurance is set up in a procedure that you don’t only get the ride share endorsement policy, you need it, but sold separately and added on. While driving for UbeLyft, their insurance is secondary to your personal policy. Once you are online, your personal insurance will be invalid. The passenger even pays for the insurance that UbeLyft charges extra for. This is why rides are expensive after COVID and passengers tip less.
Whatever primary policy you have for your vehicle.. Ubelyft is going to match the policy with contingency/secondary policies but then use your insurance for claims instead of theirs, in case of accident/incident claim.
If you don’t have a policy, UbeLyft is not gonna have the same policy so they’re going to piggyback you and coattail you to your success… if you crash it’s your fault, all the time. All the risk is always in the driver and their equipment. Along your whole entire trajectory of ride-sharing UbeLyft are going to basically watch what you do, manipulate as much money as possible that they can the whole time.. every mile & minute, while online. Offline all personal coverage.
UbeLyft provide reasonable coverage for drivers since personal policies don’t apply. The 2.5k deductible is tomfoolery. Most ride-share drivers do not have that kind of money, they would be on the hook if driver gets into an accident while on the app. Also, Ride-share insurance is not cheap and even adding a rideshare endorsement on your personal policy can make your rates double even triple depending on policy coverages needs. Many insurance companies drop people because they are a rideshare endorsement and you need to work with particular companies willing to take the risk. Drivers don’t realize this until is too late, after UbeLyft rake 50-70% off the top of drivers production already. UbeLyft both sides, doing the most by offering the least & capitalizing on controlling the money with not only pay settlements but insurance as well.
So ultimately in the end, UbeLyft is manipulating Drivers, Riders and consumers through an insurance scheme as well as a pay scheme.

Super Strength: You can throw around semi trucks without much hassle. Includes the ability to not kill yourself using it.
Super Speed: Zoom-Zoom. Includes reflexes and the ability to withstand acceleration.
Super Vitality: Even the best bullets bounce off of you dented. You can heal from injuries that take a normal person a year in a week. You can't really gain muscle, but you feel like solid metal.
Super Endurance: You completely lack the need for energy. You can fight, fight, fight all night, night, night. Your body still heals. Daily values of vitamins, minerals, etc still needed.
Super Senses: You can hear, see, smell, taste and 'feel' like the best animal in each category. Beware sewers and restaurants... Includes ability to process them.
Super Intelect: You can remember everything you have ever heard, seen, though, or felt to exact detail. Does not come with creativity, but does include the ability to process information and run experiments based on learned and experience data (basically you're an unlimited storage computer).
Super Longevity: Your lifespan is theoreticslly infinite. Does not stop you from being killed by sickness, disaster, murder, or stupidiy.

As we know they were originally planning a trilogy which never happened and probably never will. What story lines would you have liked to see play out ? What do you think they had planned out?
Honestly we have no idea what that would have looked like though here’s my version
Days Gone 2
Fast forward a few years. The map remains the same but expanded upon to the south west. I’d think deacon would remain the protagonist, seeing as the fans took quite liking to him.
Deacon has embraced his leadership skills and leads a host of bikers clearing out caves or something. Boozer among them. We see Deacon at his happiest here among a band of brothers & friends, as it was before the shit
With the Colonel dead in the west, warlords & the survivors that follow them emerge left & right in new parts of the map. Kouri among them. Some of these camps very well equipped, almost resembling current day technology & lifestyles. Many of them occupy large towns & cities, fortifying every inch and living lavishly. Their personalities range from readers to brutes, psychopaths and philosophers. Despite the fact they’re all proud men, a fragile peace holds. However with the zombies becoming less prevalent, they begin to look for new enemies. If the player attacks one of their patrols or encampments, they’ll become hostile like in Skyrim or something.
Anyways, we are going to see tucker die in a slave uprising at some point and replaced by a democracy. That guy with the cowboy hat is going to get tarred and feathered or something. Lisa too is going to come into play. I think she’s going to be a psychopath regardless Deacon will keep trying to help her, tho she’s too far gone and we see a parallel to Skizzo & Iron Mike.
At one point Deacon comes across Nero slaughtering a camp. They gotta eat brains to not spazz out or some shit. Price to pay for being a super zombie. Some plot twist ensues like the Colonel knew about the nero super mutants hence why he would attack em but he didn’t tell anyone so panic wouldn’t ensue.
One warlord raids another, he retaliates & before you know it all hell breaks loose and you a free for all breaks out. Deacons camp is caught in the middle of it.
Humanity fights amongst itself. Tragedy ensues. It is a bloody battle, humanity is brought to a low. Spiked heads, disembodies corpses & slaughter scenes become a common sight. For every low, a new low follows. Babes are torn from their mothers breast and spiked upon bayonets for fun. Savagery rules unchecked. Fields filled with flayed men on sticks can be found. Cruelty becomes the norm. Zombies become a means for torture and depravity. The lands are brazen with ash & the people weary. Deacons own motorbike host are ambushed and slaughtered within the chaos, their heads mounted outside lost lake , Boozer among them.
The fighting leaves Deacons settlement as a pile of rubble, but deacon is persistent in his revenge and for every man of his killed, he spikes 10 of theirs. His fury follow all those who have any association to the murder of his band of bikers. Even those who’s only crime is being related to the perpetrators are not spared. Deacon is a cold, bitter man.
Deacon then finds out that lost lake is Nero’s next target. Maybe obrian followed him. He plans to relocate
The game ends with Sarah dying, maybe to Lisa or a daughter, son, mother or brother of one of deacons victims.
Days Gone 3
Game starts off and Deacon is mad with grief. He brutally kills lisa or whoever killed Sarah. But their infant child needs him and eventually he somewhat pulls himself back together though he’s bitter, angry and violent
He remains a shell of his former self, cold and distant. The warlords are weakened from warring with one another and are helpless when their dominions are getting engulfed by swarms of Nero soldiers who plan to rid the world of man. Only the few will be spared, to be raised as farm animals for food.
The third game would be the finale so there would need to be a big war. The remaining warlords will band together to defeat Nero, Kouri among them, though at this point they are all a fraction of what they used to be. Their cities ash & rubble. Nero will arrive with the largest horde the game has ever seen. Thousands strong, wiping out every sign of life they come across. Thousands die as every position gets overrun.
Deacon and the other leaders manage organize a retreat with those strong enough to relocate and go to hot springs for their last stand. With tucker gone, it is thriving and remains the last untouched encampment.
When Nero reaches the walls of paradise springs, Fighting ensues. The siege of Hot Springs has begun. Cope dies with a smile on his face fighting government scum. Obrian feels bad and sacrifices himself for humanity by betraying Nero. Maybe deacon drops an atomic bomb on their headquarters, who knows. Or maybe everyone just relaxes a bit and coexists
In the end deacon learns to move on from Sarah, grieve healthily, and honor her memory through being a good father to their child. The game ends with flash forward scene and Hot springs is now a thriving town. The final scene shows Deacon and his kid riding motorcycles where him & boozer used to go. Or maybe it ends with an old Deacon telling his grandkids stories about the fallen legends of Iron mike, Sarah, Boozer, and how they saved the world
There’d definitely be a ton more plots, characters and locations & so on. Doubt this even encompasses a fraction of what it could have been.
Sucks we’ll never even have a clue

We’ve been together for a little over 3 years. When the 4 of us put together the band, they were already independent and active musicians. I had taken a step away from performing for university, so it had been about 2 years since performing publicly, I also had always been a solo act. I was reluctant but I joined.
Early on, we came to the group decision that if we wanted or were asked to do shows or perform individually, so long as it didn’t interfere with things the band has going on. We wanted to be sure to prioritize the band. Personally I didn’t care for the idea of doing other things musically but since I was the only one with a 9-5 profession and they were all mostly musicians for hire, it only seemed morally right. That’s how they made their money and, especially early on, if my job called, I answered bc that’s how I made my money. There had never been an issue until recently.
They were all asked to play behind another vocalist her EP release party. They told me but only after they all agreed to do it. To add insult to injury, I had to ask why we had a cancelled practice, only to find out they had decided to cancel it because that was the day of the EP release. Not only did they not tell me but they couldn’t be bothered to reschedule our practice and we had a show the same weekend. I addressed the issues, told them I was upset and hurt. Ultimately, poor judgement and bad decision making, but I love them. Forgave them and moved on.
This past weekend we were headlining at one of the biggest local venues. We’re pretty popular in our town and man did people show up. Now I’m not the social type when performing. I do the sets and take my breaks in the green rooms. I don’t wanna talk, network, or take photos. I keep to myself so I can focus and then I go home so I can come down from the adrenaline. While in the green room, a local producer or something approached my siblings and asked about me. They weren’t sure if the guy meant me or the band but sent him to the bands insta and gave them our email. My sister forgot it happened and didn’t tell me until this morning. She said he said he would send an email. I checked our email and saw nothing.
Idky, but I checked out deleted and sent emails. I didn’t find anything in deleted, the whole box was empty. So I checked the sent box. I found his email asking for me specifically and a response from one of my bandmates. Asking if I was signed, if I was interested in solo work or if it was possible to book me. One of my bandmates, idk who, responded to the email and said none of us work outside of the band and that I specifically was available to do solo work and had no interest in it.
Now idk if the guy was legit or not but it didn’t matter. One of them tried to stop an opportunity for me and then tried to hide it by deleting the original email. Whether that guy had good intentions or not, why would one of them do that? I’m so torn and hurt by it.

So, I just returned to work after being out for almost 6 months on injury, and my mental health isn't doing the greatest. Before I hurt myself, I'd only been at my job for 3 months (I had just transferred from a different area) and I knew nobody except for one person who also transferred with me, tho we barely knew each other cause we never worked together. I thought I was lonely and sad while I was out cause I was pretty much home alone and in my room all the time, and my anxiety def got worse from the isolation. But now that I'm back, nobody really talks to me even when I initiate conversation, and I feel even lonelier and more depressed than when I was isolated at home for 6 months. And I feel like I totally made friends here before I was gone, but it's like they just don't really care that I'm back or care to acknowledge me most of the time. I've been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and I take Wellbutrin every day, and that doesn't even seem to help either. And all my friends have completely different days off than I do so I can't even hang out with them to feel better. just want some advice on things I can do to try and help myself not feel so lonely and sad all the time

I was involved in a traffic collision while only having the minimim limits in CA 5/15/30. I received a policy limits (from my insurance) demand letter from the other party stating that they'll settle for the policy limit as long as I disclose my limits. They listed over $200k in alleged personal injury damages. It seems too good to be true that they'll settle for the limit without knowing it. What usually happens? Thanks. (I've increased my limits since!)

Really bummed. This Person is someone I recruited into my growing department from another team. Not poached, just "you'd have a good fit here, pls keep us in mind". And sure enough the opportunity arose maybe a year later where I have an opening and Person was wrapping up a big project in his current role. All good except current manager makes us wait about 8 weeks before he'll let Person go, so he can backfill. Fine, fair enough, and we manage since March despite being shortstaffed. So now we're at present day. The other mgr has finally released Person, and Person is set to start today. This morning Person announces that they need a shoulder surgery due to a recent injury, so will go out on leave for like 3 months.
Literally yesterday, Person and I were chatting about the transition plan, and he said he couldn't wait to get started. WTF, he totally lied to my face. Going to be hard to recover any trust from here forward. I get people get injured alal the time. Byt JFC talk to me. Is this how you're gonna deal with thorny business problems? Hide & quit??
Totally trying to keep a positive attitude but my spidey sense says Person is going to milk leave for every second he can milk, and then when I roll him back into the squad, he's gonna quit.

Really bummed. This Person is someone I recruited into my growing department from another team. Not poached, just "you'd have a good fit here, pls keep us in mind". And sure enough the opportunity arose maybe a year later where I have an opening and Person was wrapping up a big project in his current role. All good except current manager makes us wait about 8 weeks before he'll let Person go, so he can backfill. Fine, fair enough, and we manage since March despite being shortstaffed. So now we're at present day. The other mgr has finally released Person, and Person is set to start today. This morning Person announces that they need a shoulder surgery due to a recent injury, so will go out on leave for like 3 months.
Literally yesterday, Person and I were chatting about the transition plan, and he said he couldn't wait to get started. WTF, he totally lied to my face. Going to be hard to recover any trust from here forward. I get people get injured alal the time. Byt JFC talk to me. Is this how you're gonna deal with thorny business problems? Hide & quit??
Totally trying to keep a positive attitude but my spidey sense says Person is going to milk leave for every second he can milk, and then when I roll him back into the squad, he's gonna quit.

I am 47 and have been struggling physically and mentally from cfs/me and fibro for many years. About 4 years ago, I was working and felt I could Conquer the world despite my diagnosis. I work and slept, repeat. I wasn't going to let my fatigue or pain take over my life. Unfortunately I fell a few times and was unable to work per the doctor's. I had a failed back surgery that made things worse. I didn't think anyone understood my disease process before my injuries so getting hurt made things that much worse for me. Days unable to get our of bed crying from the pain and frustration of wanting to get up but I just couldn't. It has affected every relationship I have ever had including losing friends. People have taken it personally that I just can't do things most days. Washing dishes can make me exhausted. I had been a force prior to my life changing so suddenly. I'm not young but I am not too old yet. I feel days that my life is just passing me by. I had no one that could relate to what I am going through until I found Ren. His music touched me from the first song I heard. I was like this person gets it. Every song is like a story of something I have experienced and then his chapters came out. His story has so much I can relate to. Even my father's suicide was something I didn't want to have to handle or acknowledge. Here is this person that has dealt with so much tragedy like Me and is using his physical and mental health struggles as a platform to help others. I get the chills during most of his songs and they give me a sense that during this fight to feel as normal as possible that I can be ok. I am glad that his story is out their for people Like me to give hope on hopeless days.